How do we believe? If you look around, you'll find a host of "believers" -- ways in which people believe whatever they believe. There are the immensely accepting conspiracy buffs who see conspiracies around every corner. They argue that the total lack of evidence is proof of the conspiracy. There are the skeptics who look at you with slitted eyes when you suggest that all animal life needs oxygen. Then look at, for instance, a debate. Which side won the debate is almost always determined by which side you were already on. You see the reasonableness of the guy arguing for your side and can't even figure out how that other guy can even tie his shoes given the complete irrationality of his thinking processes. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea. We believe what we believe and it isn't really accurate to suggest that we choose what that will be.
Lots of things determine why we believe what we believe. It might be personal experience. "Last time I walked into that room I ran into a table. That room is dangerous." It might be from hearing someone you trust. "My dad says ..." and heaven help the kid that disagrees with what my dad says. But when this same kid comes home from school and Dad says, "No, that's not what happened in history," the standard response will be, "Yes it is! My teacher said so!" Some people determine what they believe by studying the evidence and coming to a conclusion. Some have conclusions to which they hold and around which they will happily bend the evidence to make it fit. Some prefer not to think at all and just "go with how I feel". The latter can easily believe A today and not-A tomorrow based on their feelings. For some, "expert opinion" makes all the difference and for others, "Those aren't experts." We believe for lots of reasons, but we do not choose what we believe. We may choose to reinforce what we believe, but we don't actually get to choose what we believe.
The opposite question, however, is actually expressed in Scripture. We naturally wonder how one comes to believe in Christ. We read, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing through the Word of Christ" (Rom 10:17). But why do people not believe in Christ? I wonder sometimes. I mean, I can trot out all the evidence, all the historical data, all the logic and reasoning, all the anecdotal support, all of this, and still people don't believe. I feel like I said "2 + 2 = 4" and they didn't believe me. So I pull out all the math rules and demonstrate on fingers and oranges and count it out carefully and still they don't see it. How can that be? Did you know that question is explicitly and directly addressed in the Bible?
Remember the story of the feeding of the 5,000 (John 6)? Afterward, those people who miraculously got fed chased Jesus down to get fed again. They couch their hunger in spiritual terms. "What must we do to be doing the works of God?" (By which they certainly meant, "How do we pull off this neat trick of getting fed from nearly nothing?") Jesus answers. Pay attention to His answer. "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29). It is God's work for you to believe. But that's not the question we're examining here. Why do people not believe? Jesus continued to aggravate the crowd with things like "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35), "No man can" (universal negative) "come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44) and "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53). Not a crowd-pleasing speech. The text goes on to say that "His disciples were grumbling about this" (John 6:61) and "Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe" (John 6:64). So He told them "There are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64) followed by "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:66). Note, first, another universal negative -- "No one can come to Me". One thing and one thing alone changes that negative. "Unless it is granted him by the Father." Thus, the reason that Jesus said people do not believe is that it is not granted by the Father.
Over in John 8 Jesus offers another reason for people not to believe Him. The Pharisees were dueling with Him and again Jesus fails to give them conciliatory conversation. They claim to be children of Abraham (John 8:39) and, unlike Jesus -- a bastard child -- children of God (John 6:41). Jesus responds with, "You are of your father the devil and your will is to do your father's desires" (John 8:44). Since their father was "a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44), Jesus says, "Because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me" (John 8:45). Another reason for why they don't believe in Him. It wasn't His failure to produce evidence (which He did regularly) or offer reasons (which He did regularly), but their sin condition in opposition to His truth.
One of the clearest passages on the question is obscured simply by preconceptions. In John 10, Jesus is speaking about being the "good shepherd" -- that whole "shepherd/sheep" metaphor. He protects the sheep. He is the door of the sheep (John 10:7). He lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). He knows His sheep and they know Him (John 10:14). He has other sheep (John 10:16). Some listeners think He's demonic or crazy; others that He's right (John 10:20-21). But when they challenge Him, "If You are the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10:24) (as if He hasn't been clear enough already), here is His answer. "You do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26). Not, "You are not among My sheep because you do not believe." It is an explanation of exactly the question at hand -- Why do some not believe? The answer Jesus gives is not "They aren't convinced" or "They haven't had sufficient input" or "They are just unwilling", but "They are not My sheep." The (logical, not necessarily temporal) sequence, then, is "of My sheep" first and then "believe". Without the prior "of My sheep", "believe" is not possible.
The Bible offers one more explanation to the question of why some don't believe. You won't like it. Trust me. It takes place after the raising of Lazarus (John 11). (I mean, how much more clear evidence do you need?) The text at hand says, "Though He had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in Him" (John 12:37). That is, arguments and evidence were irrelevant. The evidence was irrefutable and still they didn't believe. At this point the reader should be asking, "But ... how is it possible that they did not believe after all that?" John answers that question. John says they did not believe in Him
so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them" (John 12:38-40).Now, like I said, you won't like this. I'm just pointing. Don't shoot the messenger here. According to John (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the reason that "they did not believe in Him" was so that the prophet Isaiah would be right. On what basis would that happen (according to the text, not according to some logic)? Because God made the prophecy through Isaiah, they did not believe because "they could not believe." I didn't make that up. It's what the text says. They didn't believe because they could not believe. And why did they lack the ability to believe? Again, according to the text, "He" [God] "has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." This final reason offered explicitly in the pages of Scripture as to why people do not believe in Christ is that God blinds their eyes and hardens their hearts.
Now, again, I'm not making this stuff up or offering speculation or interpretation. I'm not even suggesting why God might do such a thing. I'm simply pointing out that God's Word says it. What to do with it after this is up to you.
To me it is a baffling thing why it is that everyone is not a believer. Seems to me that the problem of sin is obvious and the offer of salvation remarkable and everyone would want this. But it just isn't so. People universally lack the power to come to Christ; the only method of changing that is if God grants it. Humans, according to Jesus, don't believe the truth when it runs counter to the father of lies and he is their father. A prerequisite to belief is to be "of My sheep". Without first being of His sheep it is not possible to believe. And, according to the pages of Scripture, one reason that some do not believe is that they cannot because God has blinded them and hardened their hearts. In other words, biblically there are several good and clear reasons why people do not believe in Christ.
Now, maybe you don't like those reasons. Maybe you question them. Maybe you think that taking them as they are written is a mistake. You're certainly free to come to your own conclusions on the reasons why people don't believe. I'm just pointing out that the Bible clearly spells out reasons. Make of them what you will. I'm forced to go with what God's Word says on the subject. And it doesn't seem to be the reasons offered by a lot of Christians today.
25 comments:
To be thorough, will you be explaining all those passages that indicate that WE need to choose? Because, based on this, it would appear that the Bible is contradictory. We are instructed to choose, and yet God says we can't, and in fact prevents us from choosing. Now, we believe in a logical, coherent Bible, so how do we understand these without twisting them?
No.
Okay, that's not quite fair, is it?
There is a difference between "indicative" and "imperative". An imperative says "you must" and the indicative simply says what is. For instance, John 3:16 is indicative. "Whoever believes shall have eternal life." It does not say, "Anyone can" or "The choice is up to you" or how "believe" occurs or anything like it. It simply says, "Whoever does x will receive y."
The "Choose this day whom you will serve" verses are imperatives. They don't say who can, how it can be done, by what means they are accomplished, or anything like it. "You must" is imperative but does not indicate what is. So, "In order to get to the moon you must leave the planet" is an imperative without any indication of your ability to do so.
In Scripture, then, what you'll find are imperatives to choose God and indicatives that we cannot in ourselves and the gap is what must be crossed. Biblically I contend it is God's gift of "born again" that allows "choose this day". I'm sure others have their own ideas.
Would you please clarify how you would say that the following verses match this reading of John?
John 12:32-33 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
1 John 2:2 2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
Thanks in advanced.
Josh, I will if you will. (I'll explain how those you offered make sense in agreement with the rest if you'll explain how the ones I've offered make sense in your understanding of the ones you've offered. What we cannot do, despite the apparent best efforts of many, is to explain how one is wrong because of the other. That's called "contradiction" and won't work in a biblical worldview.)
I agree with you. We can not have contradiction in a biblical worldview.
My contention is that God draws all, and that is why I bring to light the two verses I have put forward. The Father’s “drawing” (which leads to salvation) and the devil’s stealing (which leads to damnation) are cosmic factors that work in conjunction with, but not in control of our choice. In other words, if a human heart is willing to submit, the Father will lead them to a saving faith relationship with Christ. If a human heart is unwilling, however, it is hardened to God’s leading and comes under the influence of Satan. In this way the Father draws all, but only grants some. The hardening is not against the person's will, but a solidification of what is already in their heart.
This seems to square with the account you have given of the Pharisees in John 8. Jesus even says that they are from their father the devil.
For the John 10 passage, it seems that becoming His sheep and believing happen simultaneously. In this way the passage could be read either way, because once one becomes His sheep they believe, or once they believe they become His sheep. You could not say that someone is one of His sheep, if they do no believe.
There is a start.
On the John 12 text, I need to point out that Jesus did not say what He said to indicate that God draws all. It says He said it to indicate in what manner He would die, not to give an indication of the effect. It was method of death, not extent of the drawing.
But moving from there, we have some serious problems. If, as you believe, God draws all, why do not all come? Where is His shortcoming? Why does He fail? Are you suggesting that the human heart is stronger than God's draw? (See how it appears to me that this view demeans God and inflates Man?)
The other text is actually much more of a problem (and likely something I'm going to write about in the near future). If Jesus is the "atoning sacrifice" (not the word used in the original text) for the sins of the whole world meaning, as you suggest, that He actually atoned for all sin, then all sin is atoned for and you're a Universalist. Everyone is going to heaven. Indeed, if all sin is atoned for -- if He is indeed the atoning sacrifice for all sin -- then God would be unjust to send anyone to Hell. Imagine, for instance, that you have a $10000 credit card debt and someone pays it off on your behalf. If the credit card company continues to bill you, they're criminally liable. "But," they tell the judge, "Josh said he didn't accept the payment on his behalf." Right! That settles that! As long as you don't accept the payment, it isn't paid ... right? No! If it is paid, it is paid, and no creditor has the right to demand further payment regardless of the original debtor's opinion. If Jesus paid for all sin, then all sin is paid for regardless of our acceptance. If He did not ... if it is only potential payment pending the agreement of each individual, then the verse is wrong as you understand it because His atoning sacrifice is not for the sins of the world -- only potentially for the sins of the world.
So, based on your explanation of the John 8 passage, you would necessarily conclude that the human heart is stronger than God's draw. You would also contend, I suppose, that the human heart is stronger than the devil, since any child of the father of lies can, at will, choose to stop being that child.
And I'm fascinated that "of my sheep" is simultaneous to "believe" which would effectively nullify the sentence. There is no "because" here since they are simultaneous -- one causes the other and vice versa.
None of this addresses the universal negatives of "no man can" (twice) in John 6 or the "could not believe" of John 12. Since the human heart has the necessary motive force, it seems that ability cannot be in question despite Jesus's repeated statements to the contrary.
First, I did not address the "no man can" passages, because I am in agreement. No one can come unless drawn. I have already stated that I believe all are drawn.
The human heart is not stronger than God's draw, unless that is how God wishes it to be. He could overpower man's will at any time. It seems to me, he doesn't do this very often though. When we choose God he gives us the strength to overpower the devil. This is one of the works of the Holy Spirit.
Explain how someone could be Jesus' sheep, without believing? How could they follow the shepherd without knowing and believing in the shepherd.
I agree with you that the John 12 verse is about the kind of death he would die, "I am lifted up from the earth...", but it includes "I will draw all people to Myself." What does this have to with the kind of death he was about to die? Maybe it was the kind of death that draws all people to Himself.
I will wait to see your post on the 1 John 2:2. Obviously neither of us are Universalists, so there must be some explanation.
You understand that "no man can" is meaningless if, as you affirm, everyone can, right?
Then, yes, you are affirming that Man's heart is stronger than God. You say it's because He has decided it would be, but that doesn't change the conclusion, does it?
I cannot explain to you how someone could be Jesus's sheep without believing because I have and you're not hearing it. You're not hearing it because of a prior commitment to "God cannot know the future." But even the Arminian believes that God chooses whom He will save in advance (1 Peter 1:1-2), before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). "The elect" or "the chosen" is a running theme throughout the entire Bible. So in a world where an Omniscient God knows the beginning from the end, knows my days before they occur, knows all things from the start, it isn't hard to figure out how one could be His sheep before believing. What I haven't seen answered is the "because" phrase in that passage. "You do not believe because you are not My sheep." It is a "cause and effect" phrase which, you say, makes no sense.
Nor can Jesus be answered with "God draws everyone." He said that the reason people don't believe is that the Father hasn't granted it (John 6:65). If the truth is that God grants everyone to come to Christ, then Jesus's statement made no sense.
And I would be curious about your response to the 1 John 2 dilemma. A lot of people hang that on Calvinists and say, "See? That whole thing is wrong because He is the propitiation for the sin of the world." What has never been answered, then, is in what possible sense is He the propitiation for the sin of the world if the sin of the world is not propitiated? It's not a Calvinist problem. It's a text question.
The funny thing about your "no man can" argument, is that your argument in not just against me, but against yourself. In your view it should say "only the elect man can". We both run into the same problem. You are trying to make this passage state that "no elect man can deny the draw of God", but that is not in the text.
If God has created man with the ability to choose to yield to the drawing of God or not, then this makes all the difference in the world. God does not arbitrarily choose who will come, and damn the rest for being the people he created them to be. No in fact this view actually makes God's judgement just. It doesn't paint God as some foolish/insane robot maker that punishes the "bad" robots for doing what he programmed them to do and rewarding the "good" ones for obeying their programming.
God grants all that willingly come, but does not grant those that do not. No problem here.
It seems to me that you are working with semantics on the sheep passage. I am fine with the understanding that the Pharisees weren't Jesus' sheep, so they didn't follow him. Their hearts were hardened, because in their hearts they had turned against God.
As for 1 John 2:2. He died so that all may come to him. Not that all will, but all may. It is not a limited atonement in the sense that it is limited to the elect, but limited to all that will. It would make sense that John would also be referring to the inclusion of the gentiles in God's plan for salvation.
Now, Josh, be reasonable. First, my "no man can" argument ... isn't mine. Those are the words of Jesus. Second, Jesus gives the method by which someone can. Not me. Jesus didn't say "only the elect" so neither do I. Because the elect can't. Who can? Those whom the Father draws (John 6:44). Those to whom it is granted (John 6:65). Now, if you are going to hold that everyone is drawn and it is granted to everyone, then the "no man can" statements of Jesus lose their force. "No man can ... except, of course, everyone can." So I am saying that there are indeed those who fall in the category of "can't" and that only those to whom it is granted, only those who are drawn, can.
I would concur that God has "created man with the ability to choose to yield", but the Bible contends that sin entered the world and that changed. Still, if Natural Man has in himself the ability to choose and to yield to the drawing of God and to believe on his own, then Jesus's "no man can" statements are meaningless ... because everybody can.
Please note, also, that the question of "What is meant by 'cannot' in these texts?" needs to be addressed. There is a difference in ability here. There is "I can't fly without mechanical apparatus" which is an actual impossibility, a physical limitation. If God commanded "Only those who can fly without mechanical apparatus will be saved", then none of us would be saved because He didn't make us that way. No, this "cannot" is different. My wife, for instance, is terrified of heights. If I said, "Hey, let's go to the top of the Empire State Building and look down," she would tell me, "I can't." And she wouldn't be able to. Why? Is there some limitation? Is there a physical block? Do her muscles and eyes not work above the 10th floor? No. It is an internal block, a matter of her own personal nature. By the same token, if the Bible accurately portrays Natural Man as "dead in sin", "hostile to God", "inclined only to evil", "blinded by the god of this world", "unable to understand the things of God" in any meaningful sense, then these would act as the same limitation as my wife's fear of heights. Nothing is blocking her from looking from a height and nothing is blocking humans from choosing God, but it would defy their natures. Jonathan Edwards called it a "moral inability". So the "programming" of which you speak (which you, rightly, deny) is not God's. It's ours. It's the sinner's.
So, just like with the "You do not believe because you are not My sheep" cause-and-effect thing that you appear to deny, you also seem to deny Jesus's "No man can come to Me unless the Father grant it" cause-and-effect argument. That is, we come to Him willingly, so He grants that we do ... which violates both the text and the cause-and-effect nature of what Jesus was saying. Why do some not believe? It isn't granted. That's what He said. Both of these texts -- John 10 and John 6 -- have cause-and-effect concepts built into them that are being ignored.
And you understand, I'm sure, that your 1 John 2:2 explanation didn't answer the dilemma. Is He the Atonement for the sin of the whole world? Or is He potentially that Atonement? The text says He is. You say He isn't. The "all that will" limitation you offer isn't in the text.
I agree with the text. No man can come Jesus unless the Father draws them and the Father grants it. The Father draws all, and grants based on the human response to God's drawing. God gets the credit. No man can come to God or desire God on their own. That is the point. I have never said that man is able to believe on his own. If God were not to seek out and draw people to himself, all would perish apart from God.
Our obvious hang up here is the nature of God's drawing, and the nature of our response. I am of the mind that God's drawing is universal and our response is limited to the way in which we follow God's leading. It seems you are of the mind that God's drawing and granting is specific and limited to God's choosing. Obviously, you are going to say (as you have already said) it is the Bible that says it, not you. I'm also sure you realize that we all have a theological lens in which we read the Bible and the same passage is interpreted different ways to different people. You have to interpret the problematic texts to align with your theological framework, and I to mine. As we have said already, we can't have contradiction after all.
One final question, How do you address the fact that Jesus said he would draw all to himself? As I stated before, the lifting up part was about his death not the drawing part.
If I understand you correctly, then, you are of the opinion that God draws everyone, making Jesus's "No man can come to Me unless the Father draws him" to mean "God draws everyone, so everyone can come to Me."
If I understand you correctly, then, you are of the opinion that the Father grants to believe everyone who first believes.
The question of Christ drawing everyone to Himself is its own bigger question, much like the problem of the Universal Atonement of 1 John 2:2. He draws everyone, but can't do so effectually since not everyone comes. No man can come unless the Father draws him, but everyone is drawn so ...
Can you see that this seems to get completely confused in my head? Seems like the cart before the horse. Seems like "Everyone is drawn" requires that Jesus's John 6:44 statement is meaningless since everyone is drawn. If "all men" means "each and every individual" in the John 12 text, there are lots of problems I can't overcome. Like how does "all men everywhere always" include the past? How is it that it is so horribly ineffectual? What about those who never hear of Christ? Why does it stand in such stark contrast to the limitation of drawing in John 6:44? Like the Atonement question, it seems to me that this requires a Universalist position ... which neither of us are willing to accept. This means they're your problems.
Now, Josh, I have to ask, how do you define "the elect"? Are the elect something different than those that choose God? Because to me, the elect are those that God called, and if only those that answer God are saved, then how are they not the elect? Your statement,, doesn't make sense, unless you have some other definition of the elect.
Secondly, if anyone can choose God without the working of God (this is ignoring the universal call, since that is made to everyone in your book), how can anyone that is saved not have something to boast in? As Stan has said, when the angels ask why you were saved and your friend wasn't, and your answer is, "I chose, he didn't" how in any sense of the word not something to boast in?
Sorry for the delayed response...life away from the internet :)
Stan,
I see no issue with both statements being true. It is true that no man can come to Jesus unless the father draws them. It is also true that all may come, because God draws all. These statements are not mutually exclusive.
If someone willingly accepts the gift of grace from God, he grants them the ability to come. The John 6:44 verse is not rendered meaningless, because it puts the credit in the right place. God draws the people, people don't do it themselves.
As far as it being ineffectual, I can not say. Maybe it is actually very effectual. I don't think I understand the Natural Man well enough to see how miraculous it is that even one of us chooses God. As far as it working through the past and to the unevangelized, I am going to trust the God that is displayed through the person of Jesus Christ. He is good and loving, and when I see the end result of these lives I will know their judgement to be good, loving, and just.
David,
You first question is about the elect. I see the elect to be the group of people chosen by God to become his inheritance. They are the recipients of the new covenant. The elect is a corporate term, not an individual term. For example, I can say an audience of people has been "elected" to watch a movie at the theater, and yet I haven't chosen the individuals that will see it. (possibly a bad analogy)
Secondly, you bring up the ability for me to boast, because I have chosen to follow God. God's grace is a gift. If a gift is given to you, the opening of the gift is not worth boasting about. There would be more to boast in, if you were God's elect and someone else wasn't. For example if I am chosen first to play a game of kickball, I have much to boast about compared with the person chosen last (or not chosen at all). If the gift is equally offered to all, no one can boast.
Contradictory? Not what I said. Pointless? Absolutely. "You can't live without air." "Everyone has air." So ... why did you bring it up? What's the point? Why bother saying it? Jesus said it for a reason. His listeners were rejecting what He said about being the bread that came down from heaven. "Don't grumble among yourselves," Jesus answered. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:43-44). That is, "I know that some of you won't get this because some of you aren't drawn." The statement has to be made for a purpose. If everyone is drawn, then Jesus wasn't telling them anything worth telling them. If everyone is drawn, then it was no reason to tell them not to grumble among themselves.
And apparently "accepts the gift of grace" is not, in your understanding, the same thing as "come". I don't understand the distinction. Is "accepts the gift of grace" different than "believes" (you know ... the point of the post)? Because I'm still unable to figure out your correlation of being able to believe and, therefore, God grants it or being able to believe, therefore you are His sheep when the texts clearly indicate that the opposite is true.
By the way, none of this deals with the problem of the John 12:38-40 passage where God makes it so "they could not believe". Kind of contrary to "God draws everyone", isn't it?
How can the elect not be the individuals of the elect group? I've never understood the difference. A member of the elect, is elect, yes? How are the people you chose to be at the theater not the "chosen"? It would be like saying Americans are people born in America, but don't call me an American because I'm an individual.
Yes, God's grace is a gift, but what made you so special to be the one to accept it? Why were you smart enough to open the gift? And the passage doesn't say anything about not boasting in God, it's about not boasting in ourselves. God chose me because He chose me for His reasons. Nothing I did, said, thought, believed, chose, effected that. There is nothing in me to boast about. All the boasting is in God. God did this amazing work in this scummy, sinful, rebellious, dead, human. What made me so special that God chose me? Not a single thing. I have nothing to boast about about myself. Boasting in the works of God? That's a good thing. He chose me to declare His glory. The only thing I have to boast in is God. You're assumption that the kid chosen for kickball first is the better player, or stronger, or faster. What does the kid chosen first who has asthma, has two broken legs, and is blind have to boast about? He can boast in the person that chose him, not in anything he did to be chosen first. That is the difference. You chose God, so God chose you. You did something to cause God to do something. I chose God, because God chose me. I did something because God did something. See the difference in the view, and the ability to boast? God doesn't say not to boast in Him, He says not to boast in me. If I am boasting that God chose me because I'm special, then I'm not correctly understanding the election process and would be on the wrong side of the no-boasting rule. I am boasting because God did it apart from me. Am I special? Yes, but not because I did anything, but because something was done to me. From your side, are you special? Yes, because you chose to accept the gift of grace.
On a side note, you can't argue that the elect is a corporate term only, and then turn right around and call me an elect.
Stan has communicated clearly and precisely. "Whosoever" does not mean anyone who wants to but it means "all the believing" shall not perish but have everlasting life. If God desires all to be saved and He draws all men then the Bible teaches universalism because all the people He draws will be raised up on the last day without exception. The traditionalists may say that those He draws will be raised up on the last day but it does not mean that because it does not fit my worldview. All these Scriptures need to fit into my synergistic way of thinking. Free will and the concept of free will is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible especially with any verses that deal with salvation but they will read their worldview into the verses that's such as John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; John 12:32-33 32; 1 John 2:2 2 that seem to imply human responsibility.
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:37-39,44)
.
God draws all, but there comes a point when God, with a grieving heart, removes his spirit and gives them over to the evil desires of their heart. This is referred to as God hardening their heart. He allows their unrepentant sin condition to run its course. Jesus could have been speaking to these individuals when discussing these things. This also makes sense of the John 12:38-40 passage.
Ron, apparently you get it. Perhaps I'm not as bad a communicator as I sometimes think.
Josh, I certainly don't mean to sound either contentious or condescending. I can only assume that you actually believe that when Jesus told them, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him," He was referring to those who had hardened their hearts. To me, that makes no sense. The question was why they were grumbling. The answer was the "No one can" statement revolving around the drawing of the Father. Your position is that the Father draws everyone. "Hardened" doesn't matter in that equation. "Why are you grumbling? Well, no one can come to Me unless the Father draws him. Of course, the Father draws everyone, so ... see, it's be cause of the hardening of your heart ... which I didn't mention anywhere." No, not at all.
And the question David asked and you didn't answer (well, okay, that's because he didn't ask it directly) was what is the difference between you who accepted the gift of grace and the neighbor who heard the same message and didn't? The only possible answer from your view is something about you. The only possible answer from mine is something about God.
The Bible says why they were grumbling. It is because Jesus said he was the "bread that came down from heaven". It says nothing about them grumbling about the "no man" text.
Like I said before, only a fool would boast in their acceptance of a gift. I agree their must be something different about me, but nothing to boast about. What I don't understand, is how the idea of a God that arbitrarily chooses one and not the other, regardless of what is in their hearts, doesn't trouble you?
I have to admit I smile when I hear people complain that "God arbitrarily chooses one" is troublesome, but that He chooses you because you were wise enough to accept His gift is not. But, to be clear, I don't claim He "arbitrarily chooses". The Bible says He chooses "so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand" (Rom 9:11), "according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:5-6). It isn't arbitrary or capricious.
But, as for the "no man" text, I didn't say they were grumbling about that. I said that they were grumbling because of His "bread from heaven" comment. What I said was that Jesus's "no man" statement was in response to their grumbling. It was an explanation about why they grumbled about the "bread of heaven" comment. He made the "bread from heaven" statement, they grumbled among themselves, and He said, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:43-44). My point was that if "Don't grumble; no man can come to Me unless the Father draws him" is to make any sense or have any meaning in the context, it would have to be that there are some who are not drawn.
Wait, wait, wait. If there is something different about you, how is that not something to boast about? It may be a lot to boast about, but you had within you the capacity to see the Truth, where others do not. YOU did something. YOU earned your salvation by responding to God's call. Whatever that something is that caused you to do that is something to boast in about yourself. You may not feel like you can boast about it, but something about you made you special enough to respond. Our side says the opposite. There is nothing special in us that allows us to respond. It is God wakening in us the ability to respond. From our view, ALL the work, every step, every thought, every choice, that is involved in the salvation process is God's. From your view, almost all the work, almost every step, almost every thought, almost every choice, that is involved in the salvation process is God's. That almost, not matter how small, some something to boast in, even the smallest bit. YOU did something. Compared to all the rest of the bad decisions you (and everyone) have made, that one choice may not seem like much, but it is something that others didn't do, and it is something you mustered up within yourself, within your flesh, and that is a work worth boasting in.
And that was meant to read "May not be a lot to boast about..." for the third sentence.
Josh, I know you disagree with Stan and that is okay with me, but it would be helpful to explain to him why he is wrong by using John 6:44,65 against his viewpoint. So far you are only using philosophical and emotional reasons why you disagree. I would be impressed if you you tell us the meaning of John 6;44,65 from the text (exegesis) rather than impose your interpretation into the verse (eisegesis). Those who disagree with Stan's views have never explained what these verses mean. If you claim that the Father draws everyone then you would have to agree that they will all be raised up on the last day according to John 6:44. If they are not all raised on the last day then you would have to agree the Father did not draw them. If Stan is wrong what does John 6:44,65 mean?
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:44,65).
Post a Comment